Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33271884›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Using an e-Health Intervention to Reduce Prolonged Sitting in UK Office Workers: A Randomised Acceptability and Feasibility Study.

Sophie E Carter, Richard Draijer, Joseph D Maxwell, Abigail S Morris, Scott J Pedersen, Lee E F Graves, Dick H J Thijssen, Nicola D Hopkins

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Sedentary behavior and lifespan brain health.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Physiology of sedentary behavior.Physiological reviews · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sophie E CarterResearch Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2815-7360
Richard DraijerUnilever Foods Innovation Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1050-7513
Joseph D MaxwellResearch Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.
Abigail S MorrisDepartment of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YW, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2800-9325
Scott J PedersenActive Work Laboratory, School of Education, University of Tasmania, Launceston 7250, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8566-7693
Lee E F GravesResearch Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3323-313X
Dick H J ThijssenResearch Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.
Nicola D HopkinsResearch Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/L017237/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Low-cost workplace interventions are required to reduce prolonged sitting in office workers as this may improve employees' health and well-being. This study aimed to assess the acceptability and feasibility of an e-health intervention to reduce prolonged sitting among sedentary UK-based office workers. Secondary aims were to describe preliminary changes in employee health, mood and work productivity after using an e-health intervention. Healthy, university office workers (n = 14) completed this study. An 8 week randomised crossover design was used, consisting of two trials: Intervention (computer-based prompts) and Control. Eligibility and retention rates were recorded to assess the feasibility of the trial and interviews were conducted following the intervention to explore its acceptability. Sitting, standing and stepping were objectively assessed prior to and during week 8 of each trial. Before and after each trial, measurements of vascular function, cerebrovascular function, mood and work productivity were obtained. This study had eligibility and retention rates of 54.5% and 77.8%, respectively. Participants expressed a lack of autonomy and disruption to their workflow when using the e-health intervention, raising concerns over its acceptability and long-term implementation. Preliminary data indicate that the intervention may improve the patterning of activity accrued during work hours, with increases in the number of standing and stepping bouts completed, in addition to improving vascular function. This e-health intervention is feasible to deliver in a cohort of university office workers. However, adaptations to its implementation, such as personalised settings, are needed to increase acceptability before larger trials can be conducted.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthPostureSitting PositionTelemedicineFeasibility StudiesHealth PromotionHumansMaleUnited KingdomWorkplacecardiovascular healthpromptssedentary behaviourworkplace

Identifiers

PMID33271884
PMCPMC7729470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.